27 comments to BBC: Public health hazard from fish arriving in California waters? May be considerably more contaminated than radioactive tunas (VIDEO)

You mean the stuff we keep dumping and leaking into the ocean goes in the fish? … uhhhh…durrr….duhhh…. oh well, lets go shopping at the mall.
What? Plutonium can vaporize just like every element? Duhhh…durrr…uhhhh.. hey Jersey Shore is on!
Rome is burning? Duhhh…durrr….uhhh… Give me my fiddle, cause Nero and I are gonna fiddle while she burns.

Ignore the man behind the curtain asking for more money to fix the mess he created… Just give him more of your money. There is never enough… just ask him.

And don't you dare cut off the corporate welfare or ask these companies to shoulder the risk that they are tranferring to the poorest people in the world, while keeping the profits and paying no taxes..

And another thing: being "stunned" that we are finding cesium in fish when we KNOW we put it in the ocean reminds of a great line from the classic film "Casablanca".
The corrupt and evil Vichy/Nazi Captain Renault, immediately after winning money gambling there, shuts down the nightclub saying "I am shocked — shocked — that there is gambling in this establishment."

The EPA safe limit per liter for drinking water is 6 picocuries or 0.222 Bq.

A liter of water weighs one kg.

So, my question is how come it is safe to eat tuna contaminated with 6 Bq/kg?

I guess the answer is that one does not eat tuna in the amount one would drink of water. But that assumption is only valid if the food supply is not all contaminated to a 6 Bq/Kg level like it most certainly is in Japan. So, how does Japan justify using a safe level for food of 500 or 1000 Bq/Kg?

Yes, thank you Majia. It's great to see it clearly stated, the distinction between the EPA's and FDA's approaches to weighing risk 'for' us. And it's just really striking to see that the end result of the FDA's figgerin's (er, risk modeling) is that Plutonium, which is evil, evil stuff inside the human body, ends up being hunky dorey, with them for us to eat, if we only get a little. 2 Bq/kilo, that is. That's 2 radiation 'zaps' per second, hitting a tiny area of tissue right next to wherever the Plutonium lodges, very easy to come up with a cancer that way. Especially if any Plutonium volatilized while you were cooking the food, and you inhaled that thar becquerel or two. Zap-zap, every second til it's all broken down, and Plutonium-239 has a 24,000 year half life.

And, if any Enenewsers read this, do I have this right? I think that loooong half-life means that a 2Bq-size bit of Pu-239 will be relatively large. With that long a half life, you're only going to get a zap (distintegration) about once every 24,000 years from each 2 atoms of Pu-239 (then it would be halfway broken down, with just 1 atom of Pu-239 left).

BUT, there you are, getting zapped twice a second, 2Bq, from the tiny hunk o Pu-239 you ingested in your FDA-approved snack. Wouldn't your tiny hunk, while very small, nonetheless have to be big enough to contain enough atoms of Pu-239 to keep zapping away twice a second for 24,000 years and only be halfway done?

Hi Gotham. Picocuries not equal to Bq, and liquid and solid measurements are different.

Someone here posted great links on the conversion factors.

There is also a really great document explaining the effects of internal emitters. I'll see if I can find it and post a link for you. It has a good explanation of the different types of radionuclides, their effects on the body, and what internal emitters do.

If I can find a link to the Converter program you can have on your desktop (converts all kinds of units to get equivalencies) I'll post that too. It's helpful.

Hi again Gotham. Here's a good explanation of the effects of different types of radiation on the body. 'Doesn't address the conversion factor (that's in another article I need to dig up for you!) However, it's a really good starting point.

'Wish I could remember where I saw the conversion info. Maybe on the forums?

There is a lot of debate on what levels of exposure are safe/unsafe. The general consensus among scientists (National Academy of Sciences, I believe supports this position) is the Linear No-Dose Threshold Model. The LNDTM (my acronym) says no exposure to internal emitters is safe. Radiation exposure is unsafe, period. (This in reference to natural sources like sunligt, just man-made ones).

Yes, the conversion factors are a bit tricky. Just remember the liquid (liters) and solid (kg) measurements will use different standards. One practically has to become an expert to understand all of this! If you do a browser search, you can find good info. on the conversion factors.

Beyond Nuclear or Helen Caldicott may also have published some very good info. on this subject. Am busy this morning but will try and find it for you. At one time found an excellent study on all of this! (Too much in my library and it's not yet well organized.)

Note: ..to be clear.
The studies were done in August of 2011. NINE months ago.

1. WHY are we just now getting this information?
2. WHERE are the more current reports?

This should be considered also:

I would say it is prudent to assume that more than one fish that was not tested may have been highly contaminated and may get caught and consumed by an unsuspecting human or later processed and applied as fertilizer to someone's garden. hmmm…?

1. WHY does the news report not consider this for the safety of all?
2. WHY should we have to figure this out for ourselves?
(although it's not that difficult to figure)

It does not really disperse. It spreads and accumulates and continues to be hazardous to life until it's 'decay rate' x 10 is complete. (In the case of cesium-137 that's 300 years) They never say that either.

The scientist says he found 97 times or percent? more radioactive Potassium 40 than the other isotope not identified but at 10Bq/kg level in these same fish, but that this radiation found was all 'natural'.

Simply a lot of money to be made in the nuclear industry and a lot of money to be made in the illegal drug industry. What they don't want. A bunch of stoned hippies growing their own food and drugs with a big old solar panel on top of the school bus which is running on bio diesel. What they want is you on the hamster wheel of slave jobs, relying on big agra and big pharma for everything. And big oil for transportation and big nuclear for your electricity. And mainstream media for all entertainment and news. They like robbing us of our time.

SUBMIT YOUR NEWS TIPS

Your identity will not be made public unless you request it

LIVE FEEDS

Receive Occasional Enenews Newsletters

sending...

Name

E-mail

SUPPORT ENENews

ENENews receives no funding from anyone or anything, except 1) People who donate via the button below, and 2) Google, who pays for the two ad spots. Thanks to all who have donated or are planning on doing so, it's nice to know people appreciate your work.